VICE.com

The Rebirth of Glenn Beck

​For years, Glenn Beck, the man known for the great deluges of words and ideas that spewed out of his radio and TV programs, kept a secret from everyone: He was dying. Or at least, doctors thought he was dying. In an appearance on his online talk show Monday, Beck admitted that since his days at Fox News he has been silently suffering from a mysterious brain illness that baffled doctors and left him writhing in pain, sleepless, suffering from vocal chord paralysis and seizures.

For 40 minutes, Beck tearfully described how his brain had deteriorated, how doctors had told him he would likely lose normal brain function in five to ten years, and how, in a Willy Wonka–style plan for corporate succession, he had discreetly selected an heir to shadow him and realize his grand vision if—or when—he could no longer remember it.

“We didn’t know at the time what was causing me to feel as though, out of nowhere, my hands and feet, or arms and legs would feel like someone had just crushed them, set them on fire, or pushed broken glass into them,” Beck told his audience. “Most afternoons my hands will start to shake or my hands and feet begin to curl up and I become in a fetal position,” he added later. “When it gets real bad my friends just kind of try to uncurl me.”

Beck is fine now. Doctors at a brain rehab center in Texas finally diagnosed him with adrenal fatigue and an autoimmune disorder, among other things, and after some lifestyle changes and a few months of hormone therapy—plus some help from God, naturally—Beck says his “brain is back online in a big way.”

But staring down a painful early death has a way of making people rethink life. And if you’re Glenn Beck, rethinking life means rethinking America—and specifically, how to save it.

In an exclusive interview with VICE this week, Beck described the illness as a “pivot point,” a seminal life event that fundamentally altered his worldview, pushing him beyond right-wing punditry and toward bigger, even more elaborate ambitions.

“When somebody sits you down and says, ‘Hey, you could be a vegetable in five years and not really remember the names of your children,’ that tends to focus you on Gosh, what am I doing? What is important to me?” Beck told me. Unconvinced that the conservative politics that he had been synonymous with for years could salvage our reeling democracy, he turned his attention to soft power, building a sprawling media empire aimed at reclaiming space in mainstream culture. And quietly, he transformed into Glenn Beck 2.0—a quieter, gentler version who calls for national unity and optimism and who wants Americans to try to love each other a little more.

“I am still the same guy who believes that the country is in trouble, but it has nothing to do with one party over the other,” Beck told me. “It has everything to do with all of us. We’re choosing this course, and I think we’re doing it blindly at times. And what we need to do is step back, look at that, and really choose what it is that we believe to be true, and does that tear down or lift up? I really want to get out of the tear-down business and into the lift-up business.

“I just lose more and more faith in being able to change things at the top,” he added. “We have to change things in the individual and the heart and with our kids. It has nothing to do with policies or politics and has everything to do with our humanity.”

To the casual Beck observer, all this might come as a surprise. The famed right-wing provocateur works under the mainstream media radar these days, and though he runs The Blaze, a news website and television channel, he is still mostly associated with Fox News. That’s where he became famous during the early years of Obama’s presidency, commanding the frontlines of the Tea Party and organizing daily field trips into the dark, apocalyptic mental landscapes of his conservative viewers (Fox host Shepard Smith used to tease Beck’s studio as “the Fear Chamber”). Beck’s show was many, many things, but it was not exactly in the business of lifting anything up.

But since leaving Fox in 2011, Beck has changed his tone, adopting a more conciliatory, even bored, approach to politics. Recently, he’s started apologizing for some of his rhetoric at Fox and for his role in helping “tear the country apart.” In our interview, Beck, who’s been in AA since 1994, describes this transformation in the confessional cadence of 12-step programs.

“I made a lot of mistakes in the past, as anyone does,” he said. “As I saw the trouble that we’re in and the role that I played in it, that was one of the reasons that I got on [Monday’s show] and why I’ve done interviews over the last year. It’s pretty hard to believe people when they say they’ve changed and I don’t believe people when they can’t tell me their pivot point.”

“Now that we have gotten this clean bill of health, I want to make sure I’m spending all the time that I have been given to do things that are empowering and uniting and good,” he went on. “I think we have an opportunity to really change the way things are done in all arenas. I’ve spent a lot of time really doing some serious thought on, How do we do radio now? How do we do television? What kind of television do I want to do? Do we want to try to put some of these stories on film? What does the future look like? Where do I want to leave a mark?”

In the past few years, Beck has transformed into a conservative media mogul and red-state lifestyle brand—a sort of avuncular Oprah Winfrey-Arianna Huffington hybrid for people who go to megachurches, bury gold in their backyards, and read critical biographies of Woodrow Wilson. His media footprint is sprawling, including an online television network with 300,000 paid subscribers, the third-highest rated radio show in the country, a wildly successful imprint with Simon & Schuster (including 12 bestselling novels of his own), a movie studio, and a clothing company. He is also richer than ever: According to Forbes, he earned $90 million last year, which is more than Oprah and much more than he ever made doing cable news.

As the Glenn Beck Industrial Complex has mushroomed, Beck has also fashioned himself as a tech disrupter, intent on putting “old media”—that is, liberal media—out of business. There is an element of libertarian futurism in the newfound optimism of Beck 2.0 that hints at his old anxieties about America’s moribund freedom.” What gives me hope is Silicon Valley,” he told me. “The vision of the future, and it’s not some ‘flying car’ future, this is real, life will change as we know it in the next five to ten years. There’s a real reason to feel optimistic about tomorrow.”

“Instead of telling dystopian stories,” he added, “we also need to look at the good side, look at what we can do: Man can be healthier, more well-connected, and we can end so much pain and suffering in a very good way and turn everything around… I really think that the freedom that is within our grasp is the exact kind of freedom that our Founders hoped someday we would find, but never understood the route that would get us there. Now, with technology, man can truly be as an individual is free.”

With his health issues now in check, Beck said he plans on reshaping his media empire around his softer, more hopeful vision of America. Since announcing his illness Monday, he’s rolled out a series of new media projects based around Beck’s new love-and-hope message, including a national #IChooseHope event, when the Blaze website and television channel will black out bad news entirely and encourage viewers to share their feel-good stories. The goal, Beck said, is to reclaim the country’s cultural narrative.

“I want people to be able to see and understand, and I mean this for the right and the left, that family-friendly doesn’t have to mean sappy crap,” he said. “Things that are clean doesn’t mean that they’re not gonna be good or dynamic.”

As with most of Beck’s media empire, this new vision is inspired by his idol, Walt Disney. “Disney knew that the world was about to change,” he said. “You could tell a Disney story right off the bat… It was hopeful. It had a brighter tomorrow. That’s not great for everybody, and that’s fine, but somebody’s gotta be out there in a contemporary way just telling great stories. And by the selection of our stories, it will tell a greater story about who we are, and what we believe in.”

How Beck plans to execute all this isn’t totally clear. And while Beck has a devoted following, it’s not likely that relentless optimism and historical narratives will put Beck back into the mainstream. But that may not be the point. Beck seems to have made peace with his self-imposed exile, content to build a parallel media universe around his new vision for America.

So far, that includes a three-part miniseries on Nikola Tesla and Thomas Edison, a feature film about the life of Santa Claus, and a stop-motion animation series about history. There’s another feature film in the works as well, but Beck won’t give any details except that it’s called The Revolutionary, and that “our intent at this point is it will not be in English.” He told me he also wants to do a series on Crazy Horse, to “set the record straight on what America did to the Native Americans.”

“That, coming from somebody like me, is confusing to people at best. But it shouldn’t be, because it’s the truth,” he said. “We can correct American history, tell the truth about ourselves that’s not all Red White and Blue Rah Rah, but still, in the end, if you understand it, will deepen and enrich our experience of America, while inspiring people. It’ll be great.”

10 Awesome Movies with Libertarian Messages

October 8, 2014 – I was recently asked to choose some of my favorite films with libertarian messages. Below is a (by no means definitive) list of ten films that provides rich insight into the heart and soul of libertarianism. The criteria? Simply a film containing a libertarian lesson to be learned, whether intended by the filmmakers or not.

Office Space (1999).

Office Space acknowledges the desire of most Americans to be free from the often miserable drudgery of their working lives. Office Space offers a critique of corporate culture and trickle-down conformity, revolving around the emancipation-of-sorts of Peter, an office drone who leaves behind the things that crush his imagination and capacity for happiness. Added bonus: Office Space is especially cathartic for anyone who has ever wanted to take a ball-bat to an office printer. Though this violates the libertarian Nonaggression Axiom, it still represents a freedom of-sorts. Either way, as the mullet-sporting Lawrence might say: “F*ckin’-A.”

To Kill a Mockingbird (1962).

The reason for this inclusion is simple: equal freedom and justice for all — the heart, soul, and head of libertarianism.

Star Wars (1977).

A rag-tag group of “rebel” freedom-fighters voluntarily join together to fight the evil “empire” – The State. Good (freedom) versus evil (force — The State). Good wins. “The Force” is not force at all, but rather voluntary, cooperative action directed toward the ends of freedom, peace, and prosperity. “A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away…” is right here, right now. Time to “restore freedom to the galaxy…”

Election (1999).

Director Alexander Payne’s dark comedy skewers American culture and politics. The story centers on a high school election for student body president, and touches on the soul-stifling conformity of compulsory education, bureaucracy, and suburbia. Mathew Broderick plays an uninspired and restless civics teacher overseeing the election, giving a wink to the possible decades-on fate of his once-youthful and innovative character Ferris Bueller. And Jessica Campbell’s Tammy summons a libertarian message, delivering an honest mockery of the proceedings to a packed gymnasium. She might as well be addressing the current political class in DC.

A Bug’s Life (1998).

This from Pixar, is a spin on Aesop’s Fable – The Ant and the Grasshopper. A Bug’s Life stands as a cautionary tale against the evils of socialism. The productive ants work hard all year, storing for winter. The grasshoppers produce nothing, then come to forcibly confiscate the fruits of the ants’ labor. Many Americans have increasingly learned to do likewise through the voting booth. Our politicians have been doing it far longer. Watch the clip. See the grasshoppers as the parasitic politicians, and the ants as the American taxpayers. This is what your politicians on both sides of the aisle truly think of you: “Those puny little ants outnumber us 100 to 1, and if they ever figure that out, there goes our way of life!”

Dr. Strangelove or How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love the Bomb (1964).

Libertarian in that it illustrates the absurdity of men scheming to kill men. Stanley Kubrick at his best. A satire of power, the Cold War, the existential madness of the burgeoning military-industrial complex, and nuclear annihilation. America’s “leaders” ironically sum their own absurdity: “Gentleman, you can’t fight in here, this is the War Room.” Also, Slim Pickens rides a nuclear bomb like Seabiscuit.

V for Vendetta (2005).

This film, released in the midst of W’s military adventures and assaults on civil liberties, offers a blistering critique of The State. Under Obama, it’s urgency has grown. V is speaking directly to you, right here, right now: “…there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn’t there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who’s to blame? …if you’re looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn’t be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense…” It must be noted though, that the anarchic V’s acts of “terror” are not in accordance with the libertarian Nonaggression Axiom. And, many libertarians look far more favorably on secession and independence than revolution, which historically replaces tyranny with more tyranny.

The timeless wisdom of Clint Eastwood’s Josie Wales: “Governments don’t live together. People live together. Governments don’t give you a fair word or a fair fight. I’ve come here to give you either one. Or get either one from you… I’m saying that men can live together without butchering one another…”

All Quiet on the Western Front (1930).

Considered by many to be the greatest anti-war film of all time, which makes it one of the greatest libertarian films of all time. Offers a sobering critique of warfare-state nationalism and institutionalized propaganda. The WW1 era teacher implores his students: “Sweet and fitting it is to die for the fatherland.” Lew Ayres’ Paul comes back from the front, confronting his former teacher with a heart-wrenching argument to the contrary.

What do you think of the libertarian merits of these 10 films? Feel free to comment and let me know what films I missed.

Steps by Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.) toward launching a presidential campaign in the wake of his party’s midterm sweep are raising questions about the role of his political mentor and father, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul .

The elder Mr. Paul isn’t expected to be there on Wednesday when his son convenes political advisers from around the country for a private powwow in Washington, the latest sign that the 79-year-old former congressman may be on the sidelines of his son’s expected White House bid.

The gathering comes eight days after the Republican Party’s decisive victory in the midterm election, which drew far different reactions from father and son.

Sen. Paul had campaigned for many of the GOP winners, and the results handed him a chance to advance his legislative agenda as a member of the new Republican Senate majority. The election also sealed Sen. Paul’s alliance with fellow Kentucky Republican Mitch McConnell , the presumptive new majority leader.

By contrast, the former congressman shrugged at his party’s big win, which gave it control of the Senate.

“Don’t expect big changes,” the elder Mr. Paul posted on Twitter on Nov. 4, saying he expected that the new Congress would fail to cut spending and would lead the U.S. into a protracted war in Syria and Iraq.

“The change in control of the Senate from Democrat to Republican actually means very little, despite efforts by politicians and the mainstream media to convince us otherwise,” Mr. Paul added in a column posted with a group affiliated with him.

The contrasting views reflect the different paths taken by father and son, with the younger Paul determined to be taken seriously by a Republican establishment that considered the elder Paul a fringe candidate in his own White House bids. He ran once as a Libertarian and twice as a Republican.

Both Messrs. Paul draw support from the libertarian movement, which has provided them with a committed cadre of volunteers in their respective campaigns. But Sen. Paul also has taken a number of steps to broaden his appeal, reaching out to the party’s large-dollar donors, the business community and African-American leaders.

Many Republicans expect Ron Paul to remain on the edges of his son’s likely campaign, more visible online than in public, possibly helping to raise money and mobilize support in the libertarian community.

“The trick is for Rand to continue to get the best of both worlds—to capture his dad’s supporters who are so passionate, but also to show he is his own person with views and relationships in the mainstream of the Republican Party,” said Trey Grayson, who lost to Mr. Paul in the 2010 Republican Senate primary in Kentucky.

Mr. McConnell backed Mr. Grayson in that race, then threw his support to Mr. Paul in the general election. Ron Paul attended only a couple of public events during his son’s Senate campaign.

In some respects, Sen. Paul seems to have two political godfathers: Ron Paul, revered in the tea party movement that launched his son into the Senate, and Mr. McConnell, arguably the most powerful Republican in Washington, who said two days after the election that Mr. Paul could count on him if he ran for president.

Sen. Paul has said he would not make a formal announcement about a White House bid until the spring.

Meanwhile, he is expected to turn to Mr. McConnell for support on his legislative priorities, including bills that would reduce sentences on nonviolent drug offenders and offer a temporary tax holiday for U.S. companies to repatriate offshore profits.

In this year’s elections, Sen. Paul supported Mr. McConnell over a tea party challenger in Kentucky’s GOP primary. For Mr. Paul, the alliance earned goodwill from business groups and established GOP donors but gave pause to some conservatives, who think Mr. McConnell is beholden to corporate interests and who fault him for striking deals with Democrats that raised the debt ceiling.

Drew Ivers, who helped lead Ron Paul’s presidential campaigns in Iowa in 2008 and 2012, said he isn’t ready to commit to Mr. Paul’s son. He cited unease with Mr. McConnell and U.S. military involvement in the Middle East, as well as family obligations.

“I’m going to watch the field to develop a little more,” said Mr. Ivers, who had dinner with Rand Paul when he visited Iowa in August. “I also want to see how Rand negotiates a few more obstacles in the course he is taking.”

Chris Stearns, who worked on Ron Paul’s campaign in Virginia, said he probably would help Rand Paul, but in a more limited capacity.

“There are a small group of folks who won’t support Rand because they’ve come to the conclusion that he is a sellout,” Mr. Stearns said. “I just think he’s being pragmatic. At the end of the day, Rand’s base of support is so much broader than his father’s.”

He is not alone. The 26-year-old aspiring restaurateur and chairman of the party’s West Los Angeles central committee is one of a raft of ethnically diverse young libertarians who hold seats in L.A. County’s huge GOP apparatus, injecting youthful energy into its operations at a time when the state’s Republican Party is nearly moribund.

After winning control the executive board of the Los Angeles County Republican Party in December 2012, the “Liberty Kids,” as they call themselves, are seeing the fruits of their activism. This year one of their own is running as the Republican nominee for Congress from the San Gabriel Valley, with Zendehnam serving as policy adviser.

The Liberty Kids are challenging the party’s social conservatives and are drawing the attention of Democrats, who see liberal youth as part of their base. And in what could be a harbinger for the GOP, they have begun campaigning in other states, aiming to increase their influence beyond California.

“I want you to look around the room,” Zendehnam said at a meeting last week, “because this is what the face of the Republican Party is going to look like.”

The Liberty Kids hold four of seven seats on the local party’s governing board and dozens of spots on its 200-person central committee, representing a county that is home to 10 million people.

Raised during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and excited by the non-interventionist philosophy of Ron Paul, the former Texas congressman and presidential contender, many registered as Republicans to vote for Paul in the 2008 and 2012 presidential primaries and then stayed on in the party.

The group is making its presence felt as the GOP struggles to reinvent itself in California, where Republicans make up 29 percent of registered voters and Democrats control both houses of the legislature and all statewide offices.

“The party is a little bit out of touch, and they need a fresh view of things,” said Calvin Lee, 27, whose strategy helped spur the Los Angeles board takeover after the party’s losses in the 2012 elections.

‘THEY CURSE AT US’

Despite personal politics that might seem more in tune with Democrats – world peace, ending the war on drugs and addressing global warming top the list of concerns for many – these millennials say they are more comfortable with Republicans’ emphasis on freedom than Democrats’ penchant for regulation.

“I used to be very liberal,” said Carey Wedler, 25, at a recent meeting of the group. But she sees government as oppressive, authoritarian and warmongering, and says Republicans are the ones skeptical of government. “Everything the government does is backed up with a gun.”

The newcomers have clashed with Tea Party libertarians, who skew more conservative on social issues. Many Tea Partiers bristle at the newcomers’ views on abortion and immigration, and their deep distrust of the National Security Agency.

“They curse at us,” Zendehnam said.

Los Angeles County Republican Chairman Mark Vafiades, himself nearly defeated by a Liberty Kid candidate for the chairmanship, said he tries to avoid conflict, instead focusing on supporting Republican candidates, a strategy aimed at integrating the youthful members and harnessing their energy.

“The party infighting isn’t so much about the local issues – it’s about the national issues,” he said. “The Liberty Caucus is anti-military, and we have a lot in the Republican Party who are national security conservatives.”

Some Liberty members plan to propose a resolution declaring concern for war victims in Gaza at the next caucus meeting, which Vafiades said would run counter to the traditional Republican position on the Middle East.

Democratic strategist Steve Maviglio, who advises candidates and elected officials, said the young libertarians are evidence of a “civil war” within the Republican Party, as moderates, Tea Party adherents, neoconservatives and now libertarians vie for influence.

But Vafiades said the Liberty group has brought youth and diversity to the party, and energy that has helped with campaigns.

“When I took over in 2012 the party was in debt, we had no paid staff, and the office was closed,” he said. “We were a non-functioning party.”

INTO THE FOLD

The Republican Party does not keep figures on how many libertarians have joined, according to Republican National Committee spokesman Raffi Williams. But Matt Nye, national chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus, said his mailing list increased by half, to 30,000, during Paul’s 2008 campaign.

“You see a lot more libertarians coming into the fold nationally in the Republican Party,” Williams said. “It’s our job to make them feel welcome.”

Libertarians, many of them young, have recently sought spots on local party boards in Minnesota, Louisiana, Maine, Washington and Idaho, according to supporters and local media reports. But neither the newcomers nor the national party could pinpoint specific victories. In Iowa, Republicans recently voted libertarians off the statewide party board.

In Los Angeles, the group’s efforts paid off with the nomination of Arturo Alas, the son of Democrats who immigrated from El Salvador, for Congress in the blue-collar suburban area where he grew up. Alas, 33, recently won the support of mainstream Republicans, including Senate GOP leader Bob Huff.

Many hope to nominate Paul’s son, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, for president in 2016. But it will be difficult for them to push their liberal social agenda across the Republican Party, said University of Georgia political scientist Keith Poole.

“You can’t influence a political party unless you start electing members of state legislatures and members of Congress. That’s the real test,” he said.

He explains further: “The mainstream media and big government have chipped away at our freedom of speech and the press. Meanwhile our government is more secretive than ever. The NSA and IRS have crossed the line into our personal lives that the Founding Fathers could never have anticipated.

Forcing transparency, providing accurate and timely reporting, and sharing analysis about what’s actually going on! There are some in mainstream media who have been asleep at the switch. So we are taking on the challenge, because you deserve the truth.

The Ron Paul Channel will be a platform for the uncensored, and sometimes ugly, truth that you won’t see anywhere else. We’ll feature the boldest, most fearless patriots and bring you the news and information everyone else is afraid to cover. We won’t play favorites. We will invite guests who have differing points of view and here’s an idea—we will engage in an honest conversation, or even debate, about the issues. We won’t be influenced by advertisers, and we won’t be censored. The Ron Paul Channel will be OUR channel! And the channel for the Truth.”

Two years after leaving Fox News, Beck’s radio show is among the top ranked of anyone in political talk, the independent news network he launched has been picked up by Dish Network and several cable distributors, and he’s busy selling fans everything from best-selling books to jeans from his clothing line.

Glenn Beck’s final sign-off

Beck, 49, is using the creative freedom of not being shackled to someone else’s network to take what’s been dubbed his “media performance art” to new levels lately — like when he reenacted the notorious baseball bat scene from “The Untouchables” to make a point about the Obama administration — but some observers say that becoming more of an entertainment force has meant diminished political impact for the conservative host.

“That does change the political influence you have, when you broaden out to be an entertainment commodity,” said University of Maryland journalism professor Mark Feldstein, calling him a “right-wing Garrison Keillor.”

“You bring in money, but you don’t have the role of lightning rod, catalyst, political icon, that he sort of once had,” Feldstein added. “I certainly don’t think he’s in the zeitgeist now the way he was. I think in terms of the effect on political discourse, it’s diminished.”

Relishing the running room he has at his own independent network, TheBlaze, Beck has also recently: Sheathed his fingers in condoms to mock the tampon earrings worn by MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry in the wake of the Texas abortion battle and used a faux French accent as he painted a “masterpiece” dubbed “Obama in Pee Pee” – a mason jar filled with yellow liquid and a dashboard Obama figure.

While Beck dramatically warns listeners that “we are living in Biblical times” and “we are at the end,” it’s clear he’s preparing for anything but. Those who work with him at his news network, TheBlaze, say Beck is well on his way to building a massive, multiplatform media company as the network aims to become a fully distributed cable, satellite and telecommunications company.

Beck departed Fox in June 2011 and just three months later launched his own conservative and libertarian network. Today, TheBlaze — originally named GBTV — features 43 hours of original programming each week and is available via internet streaming, on Dish nationally, and through more than 15 operators, including Cablevision’s Optimum TV service in the New York metropolitan area.

On the radio, his nationally syndicated show ranks third among political talkers, behind Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, with over 7.5 million listeners per week, according to Talkers magazine’s latest ratings. Beck regularly interviews big-name political guests from the right, and in recent weeks has featured Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and Texas Gov. Rick Perry. As an author, his fiction and nonfiction works often hit the New York Times Bestsellers list. (This year, Beck made $90 million, according to Forbes, and ranked number 34 the magazine’s list of the world’s most powerful celebrities.)

“Glenn has never been a guy, at least in my time with him, who has accepted the norm,” said Joel Cheatwood, the president and chief content officer of TheBlaze. “A good idea is really not good enough. It’s got to be a really great idea. A big idea should be bigger. And he’s always, in a good way, pushing all of us to take our ideas to the next level. And he usually comes in with one that’s 15 stories above where we’ve been.”

“It’s just the way his mind works, and it works that way constantly,” Cheatwood, previously a senior vice president at CNN and Fox News, told POLITICO. “To say he’s two or three or four years ahead of the game would be probably to minimize the true impact of his thought process.”

Beck’s friend Mary Matalin — editor at large for Threshold Editions, the conservative publishing imprint at Simon & Schuster that has published Beck — praised him as having “no preconceived ‘boxes’ limiting his creativity. He trusts his instincts, his gut. He is fearless.”

The show host also has his fans in Congress, including Paul, who said in a statement to POLITICO that “Beck connects, in a very visceral way, with those who believe in Constitutional government. Glenn’s influence goes beyond the political as he understands that the very root of our crisis is spiritual. Likely, no other broadcaster in America attracts as fervent a following.”

Beck’s innovative, entrepreneurial spirit is what drives his production company, Mercury Radio Arts, and TheBlaze to take risks that others in the media business would shy away from, those close to him say. “He lets all of us experiment and try things,” TheBlaze’s Buck Sexton said, likening the organization’s vibe to a “start-up” company.

Just take a look at just a few of his moves. Create a jeans line? Sure. Beck designed 1791 Denim jeans that debuted in October. Team up with a Hollywood star to produce a reality show? Why not? Beck and Vince Vaughn’s program, “Pursuit of the Truth,” pits documentary filmmakers against each other as they compete for financing and distribution for their film will debut this fall. Host a three-day extravaganza in Salt Lake City ending with the performance of an original show? Of course. Beck performed his “Man in the Moon” extravaganza complete with dancers, music, fireworks and a robot to a sold-out audience in July.

In his combined daily four hours on TV and the radio, Beck, who declined to be interviewed for this story, often focuses intensely on a single topic, delivering long monologues – sometimes sparking controversy.

For weeks after the Boston Marathon bombing, for instance, Beck portrayed an injured Saudi national student as someone involved in the attack, although law enforcement sources had said he was only a witness and then-Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano told a Senate hearing it had been a case of an innocent person being in “the wrong place at the wrong time.”

Ron Paul to Hold Major Rally in Tampa Ahead of RNC

LAKE JACKSON, Texas – 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul will hold a major rally with thousands of supporters ahead of the Republican National Convention in Tampa.

The event will take place at noon on Sunday, August 26th at the University of South Florida’s 11,000-seat Sun Dome. Yesterday the Ron Paul campaign signed a contract to secure the venue with the approval of the Republican National Committee.

The credentials fight you and I were expecting to have in Tampa has already started.

The Committee on Contests recently issued a ruling on the establishment’s challenge to Ron Paul’s delegates and alternates who were duly elected in Maine, and on our challenges to the outright cheating that occurred in Louisiana, Massachusetts, and Oregon (alternates only).

Despite Ron Paul’s supporters being so clearly in the right in these four states, the establishment is so far refusing to rule fairly and seat our duly elected delegates and/or alternates.

Here’s a brief summary of the bogus challenge made by the GOP establishment against us in Maine, as well as our challenges to the cheating that occurred elsewhere:

*** In Maine, where Ron Paul supporters held a clear majority at the State Convention, the establishment is attempting to unseat the state’s duly elected delegates and alternates – acting like sore losers in the process. The challenge to our delegates in Maine is so bogus that Republican Governor Paul LePage – who is one of the few delegates not being challenged by the establishment – has declared he will not attend the Republican National Convention unless Ron Paul’s delegates and alternates who were duly elected are seated;

*** In Louisiana, establishment “big wigs” used threats, intimidation, and force – literally smashing the bones of one gentleman – to shut out Ron Paul supporters who had a clear majority at the State Convention;

*** In Oregon, the State Chairman blatantly ignored the votes of the Convention, taking it upon himself to replace the duly elected alternate delegates with an “appointed” slate chocked-full of establishment cronies;

*** In Mitt Romney’s home state of Massachusetts, corrupt Party officials changed the rules after the game was over – kicking out Ron Paul’s duly elected delegates and alternates and replacing them with their hand-picked cronies.

As you can see, the Old Guard establishment doesn’t care about cheating, lying, abuse of process, and high-handedness in our Party.

All they seem to care about is maintaining their iron grip over the Republican Party.

But Ron Paul’s number-one goal for the RNC is making sure his delegates and alternates who deserve to be seated in Tampa are credentialed.

So if the establishment wants a fight in Tampa, rest assured we’re going to give them one.

Currently, our campaign lawyers and staff are furiously working to analyze and craft the appropriate response to the Committee’s rulings, and we’ll be sure to keep you informed as we move forward in the process.

And believe me, we will not sit idly by and watch the establishment run roughshod over Ron Paul’s supporters who were illegally railroaded by the GOP.

We will stand up and fight for all of Ron Paul’s delegates and/or alternates in these four states – and we will not back down.

Of course, one would think the Romney campaign would want these conflicts resolved so they didn’t become major issues at the Convention.

But so far they’ve sat idly by on the sidelines.

Hopefully they’ll change their do-nothing approach once they realize we’re serious about going all-out to win these credentials battles.

And remember, nearly 90 major media outlets have already reserved a spot at our “We are the Future Rally.”

So if the GOP goes through with these bogus challenges, they won’t be able to hide behind their iron curtain. They will be exposed by the press.

The good news is, the Committee on Contests’ ruling is not the final word in this fight.

The battle will be decided by the Credentials Committee in Tampa – where we are very organized and prepared to take action.

As the battle rages on over the next two weeks, I’ll be sure to keep you updated on our progress and any new developments that occur along the way.

We’ll also hear from some of our new leaders for the future, like State Senator Tom Davis in South Carolina and 21-year-old National Committeewoman Ashley Ryan from Maine.

As for entertainment, Jimmie Vaughan, Aimee Allen, Jordan Page, and John Popper of Blues Traveler with Ron Noyes will also provide live entertainment.

And to cap it all off, I’ll be delivering the speech the Republican National Convention doesn’t want the rest of America to hear.

After the rally, my delegates and alternates will be riding chartered buses to the RNC Welcome Reception at Tropicana Field.

This is our opportunity to show that we are the future of the Republican Party, so I’m asking all of my supporters who aren’t delegates and alternates to line the route with signs so our delegates can make a grand entrance.

2) Liberty Rocks After Party at Ferg’s Sports Bar and Grill

From 8:30 p.m. until 1 a.m. on Sunday, we’ll be hosting an after party and celebration at Ferg’s Sports Bar and Grill.

Aimee Allen, Jimmie Vaughan, and John Popper have been nice enough to agree to provide entertainment at this event, as well.

The Liberty Rocks After Party is open to everyone – not just delegates and alternates – so please come join us for a fun time Sunday night.

Stephen, Tampa is going to be a very fun and exciting time.

You and I are going to plant our liberty flag in the Republican Party and prove once and for all that WE are the future of the GOP.

But we’re also going to have a lot of fun and celebrate the success of my campaign to Restore America NOW.

That’s why I hope you’ll do everything possible to get down to Tampa and celebrate liberty with me and thousands of our campaign’s supporters.

But tickets are going fast, and space is limited.

So if you haven’t yet registered for the “We are the Future Rally,” it’s vital you do so now. You can register by clicking HERE.

// Last year in this column I wrote: “If you have not been paying attention, it is time to look around and realize that we are living in the political age of Rep. Ron Paul.”

The first section of the Wikipedia page entry for the Tea Party Movement even quotes a sentence from that column, where I argued the Tea Party dynamic that won the House majority for the GOP in 2010 “grew largely out of the ashes of (Paul’s) 2008 presidential campaign” by emphasizing “limited government and a return to constitutional principles.”

Now, the 76-year-old Texan is retiring at the end of this Congress after 12 terms in the House of Representatives.

During his latest run for the Republican presidential nomination, Paul tangled with Mitt Romney, particularly over civil liberties.

But unlike other candidates, he did not attack Romney harshly.

Paul and Romney remain friendly but Paul was never on the short list – or any other list – of people who were considered as Romney’s running mate.

Just last month, well after Romney had wrapped up enough delegates to win the Republican race, Paul continued to try to get enough unpledged GOP delegates to commit to vote for him so he could get his own name placed in nomination.

The idea was to give him a moment of national recognition at the Tampa convention and assure him one final platform before a national audience.

But the effort failed.

Now he will leave the national political scene quietly, although he probably had a hand in getting a coveted convention speech slot for his son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky).

Sen. Paul may give his dad a final shout out from the podium .

Ron Paul deserves more.

In presidential debates, and until his last days in Congress, Paul has continued to stir revolution in the Republican Party by fighting the GOP establishment.

During the debates, Paul got Republican audiences to applaud his calls for legalization of drugs, ending criminalization of prostitution and getting American troops out of endless wars around the globe.

“Too long have I had my dwelling among those who hate peace [Centrist Republicans?]. I AM FOR PEACE but when I speak, THEY ARE FOR WAR!

His daring positions won raves from young people, a legion of online fans and contributors while reviving the libertarian wing of the GOP and forcing open the doors of the party to Tea Party energy.

Despite those accomplishments, the Republican establishment continues to treat Paul like a crazy uncle.

But Paul is a persistent politician.

Before the House adjourned for the August recess, Paul won a vote to have an audit of the Federal Reserve.

There has never been an audit of the Fed, and it is not likely to happen now because the bill is going nowhere in the Senate.

Still, that was a revolutionary act against Wall Street, the nation’s banking establishment and the Washington politicians they bankroll.

Every House Republican, except for one, voted for the bill. Eighty-nine Democrats broke with their party’s leadership and voted for it.

Paul has long argued that the Federal Reserve’s role in monetary policy is at the heart of the nation’s economic problems.

He made this a central part of his presidential campaign in 2008, and in 2012. He even authored a book called “End the Fed” in 2009.

The global financial scandal surrounding the manipulation of the LIBOR interest rates is causing some economic observers to take a second look at Paul’s critique of the Fed’s policies.

As a member of the House Financial Services Committee, Paul’s cross-examinations of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke have become very popular on YouTube, with some earning hundreds of thousands of views.

Paul got to question Bernanke one last time at a committee hearing last month and brought a rare passion to discussions of monetary policy.

“It’s the destruction of the currency that destroys the middle class,” he said. “There’s a principle of free market thinking that says (by) destroying the value of the currency through inflation, you transfer the wealth from the middle class and it gravitates to the very wealthy. If you like big government, (you) love the Fed.

Just as he took on the powers at the Federal Reserve, Paul has taken on the powerful and the rich who support unquestioned spending on the military budget.

Cutting the Pentagon’s budget was once dismissed as a lunacy by the political establishment, and especially Republicans. But it has become an increasingly popular position in Congress during Paul’s tenure.

A July survey from the Center for Public Integrity revealed that 80 percent of voters in congressional districts represented by Democrats favor lowering defense spending.

And in a tribute to the power of Ron Paul, 74 percent of voters in districts with Republican representatives now also say they want to lower the defense budget.

Paul’s colleagues in the House are reflecting this new attitude about defense spending. In a surprise move, the GOP-controlled House passed a defense appropriations bill in July that contained an amendment to reduce the military budget by $1.1 billion.

The amendment passed by a substantial majority, 247-167. Eighty-nine Republicans joined 158 Democrats voting in favor of it.

One of the amendment’s authors, Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.), even credits Paul with helping to shift the debate so that the amendment could be passed.

As he leaves the political scene, there is no doubt that cranky Ron Paul has made his mark on American politics.

We will be living in the age of Ron Paul for many years to come.

Juan Williams is an author and political analyst for Fox News Channel.

The following is an article published this morning, following the death at age ninety-one of the legendary Science Fiction author, Ray Bradbury. It reports a side of his story that few have considered due to the spectre of political correctness.

I met Mr. Bradbury twice, at public lectures that he gave in Denver and in Boulder. I was honored to speak directly with him on both occasions, and he graciously personalized for me my copy of Fahrenheit 451, certainly one of the finest and most important novels of the twentieth century.

As a personal addition, there is an obscure story by one of the first great American authors, Nathaniel Hawthorne, which also examines the themes of censorship and book burning: “Earth’s Holocaust” from Mosses From An Old Manse (1846). It is a story that I believe, as well, should be read and taken to heart by all.

Ray Bradbury has died at 91. Far be it from me to try to assess the work of the great author of Fahrenheit 451 and The Martian Chronicles. I’ll just quote Gerald Jonas in the New York Times:

By many estimations Mr. Bradbury was the writer most responsible for bringing modern science fiction into the literary mainstream. His name would appear near the top of any list of major science-fiction writers of the 20th century, beside those of Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke, Robert A. Heinlein and the Polish author Stanislaw Lem.

Like most libertarians — which in this case probably includes a lot of liberals and conservatives — I’m a great fan of the anti-censorship novel Fahrenheit 451. But a story that doesn’t get much attention — it’s not in the Times obituary — is how Fahrenheit 451 itself was censored, by people who no doubt thought they had the best of intentions. When he discovered what had been done, he wrote this Coda to the 1979 Del Rey edition. It’s worth reading today. What Bradbury said then is still true: “There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people run­ning about with lit matches.”

In memoriam, Ray Bradbury’s Coda:

About two years ago, a letter arrived from a solemn young Vassar lady telling me how much she enjoyed reading my experiment in space mythology, The Martian Chronicles.

But, she added, wouldn’t it be a good idea, this late in time, to rewrite the book inserting more women’s characters and roles?

A few years before that I got a certain amount of mail concerning the same Martian book complaining that the blacks in the book were Uncle Toms and why didn’t I “do them over”?

Along about then came a note from a Southern white suggesting that I was prejudiced in favor of the blacks and the entire story should be dropped.

Two weeks ago my mountain of mail delivered forth a pipsqueak mouse of a letter from a well-known publishing house that wanted to reprint my story “The Fog Horn” in a high school reader.

In my story, I had described a lighthouse as hav­ing, late at night, an illumination coming from it that was a “God-Light.” Looking up at it from the view-point of any sea-creature one would have felt that one was in “the Presence.”

The editors had deleted “God-Light” and “in the Presence.”

Some five years back, the editors of yet another anthology for school readers put together a volume with some 400 (count ‘em) short stories in it. How do you cram 400 short stories by Twain, Irving, Poe, Maupassant and Bierce into one book?

Simplicity itself. Skin, debone, demarrow, scarify, melt, render down and destroy. Every adjective that counted, every verb that moved, every metaphor that weighed more than a mosquito—out! Every simile that would have made a sub-moron’s mouth twitch—gone! Any aside that explained the two-bit philosophy of a first-rate writer—lost!

Every story, slenderized, starved, bluepenciled, leeched and bled white, resembled every other story. Twain read like Poe read like Shakespeare read like Dostoevsky read like—in the finale—Edgar Guest. Every word of more than three syllables had been ra­zored. Every image that demanded so much as one instant’s attention—shot dead.

Do you begin to get the damned and incredible picture?

How did I react to all of the above?

By “firing” the whole lot.

By sending rejection slips to each and every one. By ticketing the assembly of idiots to the far reaches of hell.

The point is obvious. There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people run­ning about with lit matches. Every minority, be it Baptist / Unitarian, Irish / Italian / Octogenarian / Zen Buddhist, Zionist/Seventh-day Adventist, Women’s Lib/ Republican, Mattachine/ Four Square Gospel feels it has the will, the right, the duty to douse the kerosene, light the fuse. Every dimwit editor who sees himself as the source of all dreary blanc-mange plain porridge unleavened literature, licks his guillotine and eyes the neck of any author who dares to speak above a whisper or write above a nursery rhyme.

Fire-Captain Beatty, in my novel Fahrenheit 451, described how the books were burned first by minori­ties, each ripping a page or a paragraph from this book, then that, until the day came when the books were empty and the minds shut and the libraries closed forever.

“Shut the door, they’re coming through the win­dow, shut the window, they’re coming through the door,” are the words to an old song. They fit my life-style with newly arriving butcher/censors every month. Only six weeks ago, I discovered that, over the years, some cubby-hole editors at Ballantine Books, fearful of contaminating the young, had, bit by bit, censored some 75 separate sections from the novel. Students, reading the novel which, after all, deals with censorship and book-burning in the fu­ture, wrote to tell me of this exquisite irony. Judy-Lynn Del Rey, one of the new Ballantine editors, is having the entire book reset and republished this summer with all the damns and hells back in place.

A final test for old Job II here: I sent a play, Leviathan 99, off to a university theater a month ago. My play is based on the “Moby Dick” mythology, dedi­cated to Melville, and concerns a rocket crew and a blind space captain who venture forth to encounter a Great White Comet and destroy the destroyer. My drama premieres as an opera in Paris this autumn.

But, for now, the university wrote back that they hardly dared do my play—it had no women in it! And the ERA ladies on campus would descend with ball-bats if the drama department even tried!

Grinding my bicuspids into powder, I suggested that would mean, from now on, no more productions of Boys in the Band (no women), or The Women (no men). Or, counting heads, male and female, a good lot of Shakespeare that would never be seen again, especially if you count lines and find that all the good stuff went to the males!

I wrote back maybe they should do my play one week, and The Women the next. They probably thought I was joking, and I’m not sure that I wasn’t.

For it is a mad world and it will get madder if we allow the minorities, be they dwarf or giant, orangu­tan or dolphin, nuclear-head or water-conversation­ist, pro-computerologist or Neo-Luddite, simpleton or sage, to interfere with aesthetics. The real world is the playing ground for each and every group, to make or unmake laws. But the tip of the nose of my book or stories or poems is where their rights end and my territorial imperatives begin, run and rule. If Mor­mons do not like my plays, let them write their own. If the Irish hate my Dublin stories, let them rent type-writers. If teachers and grammar school editors find my jawbreaker sentences shatter their mushmilk teeth, let them eat stale cake dunked in weak tea of their own ungodly manufacture. If the Chicano intel­lectuals wish to re-cut my “Wonderful Ice Cream Suit” so it shapes “Zoot,” may the belt unravel and the pants fall.

For, let’s face it, digression is the soul of wit. Take philosophic asides away from Dante, Milton or Ham-let’s father’s ghost and what stays is dry bones. Laur­ence Sterne said it once: Digressions, incontestably, are the sunshine, the life, the soul of reading! Take them out and one cold eternal winter would reign in every page. Restore them to the writer—he steps forth like a bridegroom, bids them all-hail, brings in variety and forbids the appetite to fail.

In sum, do not insult me with the beheadings, finger-choppings or the lung-defiations you plan for my works. I need my head to shake or nod, my hand to wave or make into a fist, my lungs to shout or whis­per with. I will not go gently onto a shelf, degutted, to become a non-book.

All you umpires, back to the bleachers. Referees, hit the showers. It’s my game. I pitch, I hit, I catch. I run the bases. At sunset I’ve won or lost. At sunrise, I’m out again, giving it the old try.

The following is condensed from an email I received on May 5 from Matt Hawes of C4L. I’ve been meaning to post it but am only now getting to it. A great deal for anyone interested! Low rates and rich content. Check it out:

Last year, the first-ever Liberty Political Action Conference (LPAC) drew over 700 grassroots activists to Reno, Nevada, for a weekend of educational speeches, networking and top-notch political training.

LPAC 2012 will be held at the Westfields Marriott in Chantilly, Virginia, from September 13-15, and it will bring together exciting personalities and leaders in the liberty movement to discuss sound money, foreign policy, civil liberties and the constitutional hot button issues facing our country today.

It will play host to freedom activists from across the country and will showcase conservative, libertarian, constitutional and free market organizations and businesses.

A ticket to all three days of the main Conference events costs only $120, but you can click here to take advantage of our special Early Bird rate of only $85.

A three day student pass is available for only $40 to those who can present a valid student ID at check-in.

For those who want to be equipped with the tools and practical knowledge it takes to achieve victory for our ideas on the local, state and national levels, our special Saturday grassroots political training is available for only $50.

Our training will teach you how to turn your passion into action, hold your legislators accountable, grow support for your efforts and much more.

“We are living in a strange civilization. Our minds and souls are so overlaid with fear, with artificiality, that often we do not even recognize beauty. It is this fear, this lack of direct vision of truth that brings about all the disaster the world holds, and how little opportunity we give any people for casting off fear, for living simply and naturally. When they do, first of all we fear them, then we condemn them. It is only if they are great enough to outlive our condemnation that we accept them.” –Henri, Robert. Collected by Margery Ryerson. The Art Spirit. Philadelphia, 1923.

The above quote strikes deeply within my heart. I found it in the following essential book for any home library: [VandenBroeck, Goldian, ed. Less is More: An Anthology of Ancient & Modern Voices Raised in Praise of Simplicity. Foreward by E. F. Schumacher (Author of Small Is Beautiful: Economics As If People Mattered. 1973.). Inner Traditions: Rochester, Vermont, 1978, 1996. p. 219.].

The beauty or the fear of simplicity. How the right and left of our civilization have seemingly forever feared the beauty of simplicity!

Artist, Robert Henri’s quote resonates so strongly alongside the following quote by economist and philosopher F. A. Hayak, whose birthday (although he has long passed) was three days ago:

“There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal. While the first is the condition of a free society, the second means as DeTocqueville describes it, ‘a new form of servitude.'” –Hayek, Freidrich August. Individualism and Economic Order. 1948.

“In the negative part of Professor Hayek’s thesis there is a great deal of truth. It cannot be said too often – at any rate, it is not being said nearly often enough – that collectivism is not inherently democratic, but on the contrary, gives to a tyrannical minority such powers as the Spanish Inquisitors never dreamed of.” –Orwell, George. 1944. Writing in response to Hayek’s book: The Road to Serfdom (1944)”.

Author of the classic dystopian novels 1984 (1949) and Animal Farm (1945), Orwell was no fan of capitalism and yet he found it within himself to step away from partisanship to pen the above, historically-informed forewarning.

Please note Keynes’ inclusion of the word “practical.” Both the right and left have seemingly forever criticized as an impractical (and unregulated) ideal the simplicity of “treating people equally” as opposed to just making everyone equal (regulated).

One example that comes to mind is the issue of who should fund the caring of the present multitude of those who are unable to work and create income. One side argues that the government should stay out of it and that community programs should oversee the need. The other side calls this impractical because, likely, community programs won’t be able to fund or handle the load. The poor will instead get shuffled off under bridges, to the gutters and into the back alleys.

Is it a matter of practicality? Is it true that citizen-funded community programs can’t or won’t handle the load? Is a governmental equalization and regulation of incomes or subsidies the only solution?

Attempting to make people equal is collectivism, as Orwell calls it, which he then describes as “not inherently democratic” but “tyranical,” worse so even than historically imposed by the merciless Spanish Inquisitors.

Please also note how artist Robert Henri and economist F. A. Hayek seem to resonate in the above quotes. Economist Robert Maynard Keynes and artist Robert Henri, on the other hand, do not seem to me to resonate at all. Art synonymous with simplicity? Art in opposition to practicality?

How many times has a creatively-gifted student pursuing a degree in writing been told by parents that such a degree would not be practical? How many such students have listened to such regulatory and collectivist advice? Where would our world be without gifted writers on the left, the right and all points in between?

Hmmm, based on the insights from the above quote from Orwell, I wonder if he had parents like those mentioned above, and if so, chose instead to pursue his gift as a writer?

I learned from an influencial person in my life that if I place my palm against another’s and push, that is a difficult, forceful and stressful path that leads to anxiety, fear and artificiality. If I place my palm against another’s and relax, let go of pushing, then that is a stress-free way of simplicity, non-tension. A natural equality. The two palms can exist alongside without either pushing at the other, and they can get by on their own. Too simple?

Allowing people to empower themselves toward their own pursuits, allowing a free society–whether to live modestly according to one’s meager means or affluently, left or right, craftsman or entrepreneur–whatever, is the simple way of beauty–the beautiful way of simplicity. An ideal? Yes. So what. Impractical? No.

In a football game, the kicker doesn’t aim at the goal post but beyond it. He may not make 100 percent of the attempted distance, but 80 or 90 percent may put the ball over the post–a score. 100 percent is a goal likely never to be achieved. It is a utopian ideal, impractical. Don’t confuse that with a score.

The ideals of libertarianism, most fully realized in the aims of Ron Paul, are not to hit an idealistic 100 percent, I don’t believe, but to hit as close as possible. The goal is to score a realistic and beautiful win.

Of course, the kick is only as good as the kicker. Players’ records speak loudest on who to place one’s trust in.

In speaking of progressivism, the object is to progress. The art of football is to progress down the field to a score, to progress in scoring to a win and to progress in winning to take the beautiful Super Bowl. If you lose, you come back again. You make progress. The art is not, however, to progress in injuring the other team’s players to the point of taking them out of the game, or to bypass the rules.

The most obvious and current example that comes to mind is President Obama’s push to the Supreme Court of what has come to be known as “Obamacare.” By most accounts, the court (now considering the case) will ultimately block his attempt at a “score.” Why? Because it directly conflicts with our constitutional guarantees for a right to choose our individual pursuits. The president is attempting to push aside the Constitution along with all those who oppose him–to bypass the refs and the rule book. Maybe the refs will turn a blind eye, and he’ll score. Likely he won’t.

For myself, I choose not affluence but a more simple life. Who am I to shove it down my affluent neighbor’s throat that his choice is wrong, and that I aim to not only make him swallow it but to kill affluence altogether and ultimately to make her or him enjoy the experience?

Creating a “green” planet” by killing off affluence and consumption are separate concepts, to raise another example. The first is admirable for all to work towards. It takes cooperation and compromise to reign in the real dangers of out-of-control consumption.

The second is social engineering for the sake of “making people equal”–a power grab; a purely and politically partisan imposition on OUR equality through nature–“our,” meaning ALL–right and left, Black and White, male and female, gay and straight, spiritual or atheist, simple or affluent. It’s the equivalent of saying: “I’m right and you’re wrong.” “I’m smart and you’re stupid.” “I’m elite, and you’re of a lower class.” Servitude.

By the nature of equality and free will, no one person or group has a right to impose their ideals on any other person. Simple?